Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Apollo 11. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Apollo 11. Mostrar todas as mensagens

sábado, maio 11, 2019

EVA: "First on the Moon: The Apollo 11 - 50th Anniversary Experience" by Rod Pyle



For me the first words on the Moon were not the "One small step, etc" but the wonderful point when the Apollo lander actually landed and the crew changed from the call sign "Apollo 11" to "Houston, tranquility base here, the Eagle has landed" (not a single word wasted; technically, the first words from the surface of the moon were "contact light" - i.e., the LM was in contact with the lunar surface.). God, I wish I could have seen it live...those words still make me well up every time I hear them. Pilots doing their thing, superbly, and sounding calm and imperturbable as they made history. Has the world gone backwards in the last 50 years? Yes and no. "No" from a technology perspective, but most definitely from a sense of adventure perspective. No chance the Apollo programme would happen today - too many bleeding hearts complaining about how many schools and hospitals it could have paid for...

Aldrin said that he long suspected that one reason he'd been overlooked was the furor over the Gemini 9 mission, when he was had suggested (behind Gene Kranz' back) that Cernan conduct an incredibly risky spacewalk to try to cut the badly installed lanyards on the Agena docking vehicle's shrouds. The EVA wasn't undertaken -- the possibility of injury or death when the spring-loaded shrouds released was considered far too high -- and Kranz almost resigned as a result of the breakdown in command. (He told Kraft that he would leave after Gemini 9, but was later persuaded to stay on.) This all left a suspicion in Kranz/Slayton/Kraft's minds over Aldrin's judgement. Of course, it's just as likely that they chose Armstrong because he was considered a better role model for 'first man'... [See Kranz and Kraft's flight controller biographies for more on these.]

Sixty six years from the first heavier-than-air flight to landing on the Moon is a breathtaking rate of change; and the bending of an entire nation to the single purpose of building and flying Apollo is one of the greatest achievements in history (and this is the ultimate proof that Kubrick didn't fake the moon landings. If he had we'd have got up to Apollo 160 before he was satisfied). I was three years old and I'm still trying to forgive my mum for not waking me up. But I do remember her crying when it looked like the Apollo 13 men were not coming back. Remarkable times.

I think there's an interesting debate to be had about technological progress too. Sure, tech has become ubiquitous, but almost all of it is based on stuff that was developed in the 60s and 70s, just smaller and more powerful - and almost all of it developed in publicly funded projects too. I wonder what could possibly have happened at the start of the 80s that destroyed that sense of research for the sake of research rather than for the sake of shareholder value?

I just wish Pyle had put more stuff in the book. I'll have to look elsewhere to get something more of the 50 years Moon Landing craze...

sábado, março 04, 1995

Realistic Sounding Nonsense: "Triplanetary" E.E. "Doc" Smith

(my own English edition bought in 1999)


"Immediately before the Coalescence began there was one,and only one, planetary solar system in the Second Galaxy; and, until the advent of Eddore, the Second Galaxy was entirely devoid of intelligent life"

In "Triplanetary" by E. E. "Doc" Smith


There are only three real approaches to physics in SF:

1. Absolute hard core real physics with speculative aspects;
2. Realistic sounding nonsense;
3. Unrealistic sounding nonsense.

(bought in 1999; cost = 1980 Portuguese escudos, around 9.88 euros in today's European currency)


I am personally a fan of approach 2. This gave us stuff like "Triplanetary", "First Lensman", etc.

In response to those suggesting that dissecting the science in SF novels is redundant and possibly silly, I would argue for a dichotomy. On the one hand, you have SF that are just that, fiction (in case of "Triplanetary", crap fiction). Importantly, they do not claim to be more. They could be set in the distant future, use blatantly non-existent faux-physics terms to drive the plot (e.g. "dilithium" crystals, inertialess drives, colliding galaxies (*), etc.), not address time-travel paradoxes etc. That's fine... they stay within the realms of their claim and no-one expects them to be accurate. On the other hand, there's stuff that claims to be based on what we currently know about space and physics (e.g. Apollo 13, Gravity, Interstellar). I think this category of SF needs to get things right as much as possible. When truth and fiction are mixed, it is important to be able to tell which is which. As a parallel, I do know that "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is not a historically accurate biography.


If a film made the claim that it was a Lincoln biography, I would expect it to be broadly accurate. Otherwise, I would be misled. Yep, it is silly to suggest that Apollo 11 did not land on the moon... having said that, Apollo 13 also reached and successfully landed on the moon (not shown in the film). This was never disclosed because the secret world government does not want you to know that that's when we first made contact with aliens. This tripartite agreement for secrecy between the world government, the Bush family and Elvis representing the aliens, came about because humanity is not yet considered ready for alien contact. Furthermore, the aliens do not want you to know that tin-foil hats are indeed the best defense against their mind-control weapons. One day, the truth will come out thanks to people like me writing reviews and trying not to make derogatory comments on Doc Smith's "science". This story was published in serial form in 1934 ffs, more than 80 years ago! What did we know about science in the 30s when it came to Astrophysics and Cosmology! Nothing!


PS. (*) Galaxies do actually collide, within local clusters and superclusters, just because of gravity. It's only on the very largest scales that they are all moving apart. So, Doc Smith was not that far off...


NB: Read in 1985 for the first time. Re-read in 1995.


SF = Speculative Fiction